The Warnifesto

Part One of Shane Warne’s manifesto for the overhaul of Australian cricket presents itself as a radical alternative to Cricket Australia’s current model, but has more in common with it than he would freely confess. Both rest on the assumption that a renewed period of cricket success is as far away as inserting the right names in a management diagram. Warne’s names aren’t even that new. Rod Marsh as selector? He is. Mark Taylor as chief executive? Mark Taylor, a director of CA until a couple of months ago, was one of the signatories to the Argus Review which underpins the current approach. A coach chosen on the basis of impressive performances against Australia? It was CA that took this step when they appointed Mickey Arthur eighteen months ago; would Stephen Fleming be so much better?

In any case, where did this enormous faith in coaching from? The man who always subscribed to the Ian Chappell view that ‘the coach’ is what the teams travel in to and from the hotel now wants the Australian team to have seven. If cricket is such a simple game, why does it need to be articulated by more than half as many coaches as there are players in the Australian XI? But then, it can be as hard to keep up with Warne’s reasonings as it is the evolution of his views. A month or so ago, he was poised to make a comeback because of Nathan Lyon’s perceived deficiencies. Now Lyon is part of ‘the spine’ around which the Australian team is to be rebuilt. A month or so ago, Warne was so indifferent to cricket that he preferred to spend Christmas in England rather than captain his BBL team. Now he’s an ‘emotional, passionate…and concerned ex-cricketer who loves Australian cricket.’

What the manifesto is mainly is a guide to whom Warne rates in the world of cricket, which is interesting, because it also hints at Warne’s deep traditionalism. He places great weight on long-term relations, those struck in his formative days: Marsh, Chappell and Martyn, with whom he goes back to the academy; Merv, the other client of his first manager; Waugh, Taylor, McGrath, Lehmann, Bevan, long-time colleagues. No actual argument is presented as to the inadequacies of, say, John Inverarity or Pat Howard: they simply disappear; they do not register. Nor is any argument presented as to why the coach should not be a selector and the captain should. If the role of ‘confidante to the players’ is truly significant, surely it applies equally. Why should the one voice, of captain, have greater sway at selection than the voice of seven, being the coaching staff? Might this have something to do with Warne’s personal relations with the incumbent skipper, Michael Clarke?

There’s more to come in the Warnifesto, so perhaps we should not prejudge it. The words of Warne do matter. But in the end they will need to matter more than simply because they are the words of Warne, more than because they articulate an unfocused discontent with the quality of the current XI. In the end what is much more significant about the Australian cricket team is not what Warne is saying about it but that he is no longer playing in it.

Your Comments

As usual Gideon, an interesting read. I also get the feeling that a lot of the malcontent with Australian cricket is the delusion that the domination we once had will continue on and forever.

adamtwitteyThu 31 Jan 13 (11:07am)

What’s the odds on Warney addressing all of these points as if he’d already thought of them in the Warnifesto02?

Michael LarkinThu 31 Jan 13 (11:20am)

As usual Gideon, an interesting read. I also get the feeling that a lot of the malcontent with Australian cricket is the delusion that the domination we once had will continue on and forever.

dennis coonThu 31 Jan 13 (09:55pm)

correct in so many ways

JohnBFri 01 Feb 13 (11:40am)

To quote from the manifesto as reproduced on the Roar “The team should be selected first, not the captain, the captain will be chosen from the team selected.”

That’s perfectly fair, and is substantially how things have been done (with the qualification that once picked for a series, the captain generally keeps getting picked). But if you pick the team and then the captain, how can the captain be a selector?

A small point maybe, but at least one area where no much real thought has gone on.

Post A Comment

We welcome your comments. All comments should be concise,
focus specifically on the topic for discussion and are submitted
for possible publication on the condition that they may be edited.
Comments that are derogatory toward the blogger or at other comments,
or those which may potentially incite racial hatred or violence,
are defamatory or in contempt of court, will not be published.
Please provide a screen name and
suburb/location - these will be published
.
We also require a working email address - not for publication,
but for verification.

* Required fields

Screen Name:* Required

Location:

Email Address:* Required

Your Comments:* Required

Email To A Friend

* Required fields

Subject:* Required

Recipient's Email:* Required

Your Name:* Required

Your Email:* Required

Your Email:* Required

Information provided on this page will not be used for any other purpose
than to notify the recipient of the article you have chosen.

Share This Article

From here you can use the Social Web links to save 'The Warnifesto' to a social
bookmarking site.